Cops Against the Drug War
Radley Balko | December 22, 2006, 6:39pm
A former Texas narcotics officer, described by colleagues and supervisors as the best narc in the state and perhaps in the country, has not only come out against the drug war, he's promoting a video instructing drug offenders how to evade the police.
A promotional video says Cooper will show viewers how to "conceal their stash," "avoid narcotics profiling" and "fool canines every time."
Cooper, who said he favors the legalization of marijuana, made the video in part because he believes the nation's fight against drugs is a waste of resources. Busting marijuana users fills up prisons with nonviolent offenders, he said.
"My main motivation in all of this is to teach Americans their civil liberties and what drives me in this is injustice and unfairness in our system," Cooper told the newspaper.
Police and public officials in Texas are tripping over themselves to announce what a traitorous, horrible person Cooper is, and they're even looking into the possibility of charging him with a crime. They don't seem all that concerned about the fact that a guy who ought to know as well as anyone has publicly declared that the drug war is corrupt, fundamentally unjust, and a complete waste of resources. You'd think that such an occasion would be at last enough for a brief, "hey, wait a minute" moment.
Nah. Condemn him, ostracize him, and move on to the next Tulia.
whit | December 23, 2006, 4:20pm | #
stephen. that's a bunch of crap
cops don't write the law.
lots of laws suck, and i disagree with lots of them, but cops can't ignore certain felonies (and many misdemeanors) just because they don't agree with the law. that's called anarchy.
i am fiercely proud of my service, and you are clearly an idiot.
there is no sentient being on the face of the earth who would agree with every criminal law on the book. therefore, by your "logic" no person should ever be a police officer, because sooner or later they would have to enforce a law they disagreed with.
fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional. i think it's bad policy. but that's a whole other argument.
heck, i think many gun laws i had to enforce were arguably unconstitutional.
there are people who live in the real world, and then there are people like you.
by your "logic" we should have no police whatsoever. yea, that would work real well
how many lives did you save? how many rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. have you put in prison. how many people did you pull from a burning building? etc.
law enforcement is a noble profession, but if you are against drug policy, blame the POLICYMAKERS. they made that policy. and like it or not, the vast majority of the USA is not for drug legalization
Brad | December 23, 2006, 10:06pm | #
well, actually -
First they would have to levy a special tax to pay for it.
Since that is a logical conclusion on your part I will concede the point.
grylliade -
Why, exactly? People have to take all kinds of different tracks to get to opposition to the war on drugs. In this fight, we need all the allies we can get; we're starting to turn the tide, I think, but we're still a loooooooooong way from winning. To criticize people because, before opposing the war on drugs, they supported it, is asinine. Maybe he should feel guilty because of his support; if so, it's his own business, not something that can be imposed on him by others. I see no reason not to welcome those newly arrived to their opposition to the war on drugs, and not to make them feel like second-class citizens just because they took more convincing than us. Have a healthy dose of humility here; I'm certain that most of us have done things, or held positions, that we later find embarrassing, or even horrifying.
Being a former active duty member myself - who initially supported the war in Iraq through my own folly of accepting this administrations lies (hook line and sinker) all because of misplaced emotions related to 9/11, and also supporting the War On Terrorism until I realized that it is also our misguided foreign policy that has been to blame for agitating muslim radicals in the first place - I can agree with you 100% and I have no problem eating my slice of humble pie.
And, trust me on this one, I am not criticizing this former officer/agent. I personally believe he is a true patriot and that he does deserve a medal for coming out in opposition to the WoD. Unfortunately I do not see this happening any time soon as evidenced by past and present behaviour exhibited towards dissidents by our government. I mean look at the guy, he had nothing but positive testimony from his former colleagues for his actions when he supported the WoD and now they want to hang him. That's a travesty due to their own ignorance and stupidity.
Now... do I believe that his former colleagues deserve praise if they change their positions also? Of course I do.
Whit -
fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional.
Then what are you doing on a board where the majority of people are fed up with the unconstitutionality of the WoD in the first place? And yes, I would say law enforcement
was a noble profession at one point, but it's not anymore. Just look at the depressing numbers most police departments have when it comes to recruitment. Nobody wants to be a law enforcement officer anymore.
And for the record, this is not directed at anyone except our Federal government:
However much I may have been fooled by the Federal governments past assertions and misguided foreign policy I have never supported the War on Drugs because I believe it is a human rights issue (Don't we own our own bodies?). And, I also hold this view since I realized (somewhere in the late 80's) that Jack Herer is most likely correct, and that there was a conspiracy to suppress the number one natural competetor of petroleum by outlawing the industrial cultivation of hemp with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Ever since then, a select group of elitist have been using the Federal government to aggresively poke their nose into Middle East Politics, overthrow governments, carve up borders, and impose tyrants (Think House of Saud) upon the peoples of that region.
Furthermore, this same group of elitist have been using the Federal government to wage a war upon the American People by duping them into believing lies... and for what? In my opinin it's just so they can stymie free-market innovation and destroy our agricultural markets and industrial capabilities with mercantilist policies so that they can continue to profit off of their misdeed while continuing to influence the Federal government so as to rule the U.S.A in their image. These elitist do not want American farmers competing with them for profits in the energy sector, and they have no problem using law enforcement to arrest and destroy lives to the point where the United States imprisons a greater percentage of their population than any country in the world.
whit | December 24, 2006, 10:32am | #
again, it comes down to this. all but the most moronic (and there are some here) agree that we need police forces.
we also agree (generally) that police are forced to enforce the laws we have, not the laws we WISH we have.
i could give a laundry list of sucky (and many imo unconstitutional laws ) that have to be enforced by local law enforcement
1) anti-smoking laws
2) my state makes it a "c" felony to gamble online, but it's perfectly willing to gamble in a casino where the rake is 10X as high, and the state gets their cut
3) VUFA laws that make it illegal for somebody who is a respondent of a protection order to carry a firearm, or possess one. this imo is a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment
4) mj laws, which are totally retarded imo (but again, many cops in many agencies can and do give warnings, not citations for mj possession)
5) etc.
but again, the cops are not to blame for bad law. the POLICYMAKERS are.
and if one chooses the noble profession of policework, one will necessarily be enforcing bad law, and sometimes unconstitutional (whether later determined to be so in a de facto or de jure sense)
i was waiting for somebody to make the stupid comparison of drug laws to chattel slavery or something
look, using drugs is a CHOICE. the laws *are* stupid, but it is not a status offense, and it is a punishment that one can avoid by CHOICE not to break those laws
that is not true of slavery, etc. that were imposed upon innocents, etc.
i *do* think the drug laws suck, as do many cops, but that's the way rule of law works
many people have this ridiculous pollyanna attitude (libertarians in general, which is kind of sad), that cops could or should not enforce law that is bad policy.
that would be anarchy, and it is not acceptable for individual cops to make law. that is the job of the LEGISLATURE, NOT the executive branch
seperation of powers is pretty frigging important, and having cops make up the law is wrong, even if they are making up the law (or ignoring the law) for good effect. the ends do not justify the means.
i really can't believe people are advocating that individual members of the executive branch (especially those with state sponsored guns, power of arrest and search etc.) have free agency to pick and choose what laws they think are reasonable to enforce and not enforce.
fwiw, on a certain level, cops do have discretion to give warnings, etc. for infractions and misdemeanors
that's a bit different than a cop coming upon a meth lab (a serious felony) and saying "well, i don't agree with criminalizing meth production, so I'm going to ignore this lab, turn around and walk away"
should we just get rid of the legislative branch altogether and give police the power to make the very laws they enforce? that is , effe3ctively, what many are proposing, except that it's ok with them, as long as the cops are slectively enforcing/not-enforcing the laws YOU agree with.
